Does Baptism have to be by immersion?

[WestminsterMan]

You must be new to Baptist Circles. Let me help you out. Baptist is only by immersion is a baptist distinctive.

Distinctively incorrect!

WM

 

[The Biblicist]

Biblicist. I didn't trash the scriptures, I simply provided historical documentation clearly indicating how early Christians worshiped. I understand your frustration with the fact that their worship is different than yours. But with that, you must deal.

WM

The point is that the scriptuers teach contrary to the "father's" in regard to baptism so in order to find any justification for another mode than immersion, and another candidate but believers one must find it OUTSIDE of the scriptures.

 

[Yeshua1]

You must be new to Baptist Circles. Let me help you out. Baptist is only by immersion is a baptist distinctive.

believers baptism......

done to one who has already been saved, and is done by immersion...

 

[Revmitchell]

Distinctively incorrect!

WM

You have not a clue.

 

[Revmitchell]

believers baptism......

done to one who has already been saved, and is done by immersion only...

I added to your quote for clarification.

http://christianity.about.com/od/denominations/a/baptistdenom.htm

http://baptistdistinctives.org/articles/believers-baptism/

http://sbctoday.com/2007/09/26/reclaiming-the-baptist-distinctive-baptism-by-immersion/

http://www.thealabamabaptist.org/print-edition-article-detail.php?id_art=15699&pricat_art=5

 

[The Biblicist]

Distinctively incorrect!

WM

According to the vain traditions of men! However, that is where your kind must flee to as a refuge as the scriptures are a scathing rebuke to your traditions of men.

 

[Yeshua1]

First, All the elect are not part of the church/body/bride of Christ as the church had no existence previous to the public ministry of Jesus Christ and yet multitudes of elect regenerated (spiritual union with God) saints lived between Genesis and Matthew.

Agreed, its just that the Old testament believres were saved by the Cross of yeshua, but are NOT part of the body of Christ, called the bride/Church!

Second, you are confusing the kingdom of God with the church of God. All the elect are born into the kingdom of God and have SPIRITUAL UNION by new birth BEFORE the cross and BEFORE Pentecost (John 3).

again, they were saved by same grace, but NOT part of the Church, that was formed int he NT era!

Third, the church of Christ has to do with SERVICE and PROGRESSIVE SANCTIFICATION and nothing at all to do with regeneration/conversion/justification.

those who were saved from time of yeshua forward ONLY persons in it!

Fourth, your doctrine demands TWO different kinds of churches of Christ when there is but "one" kind - the local visible kind and your doctrine demands two different ongoing kinds of baptism when there is but "one baptism" and it is the baptism administered by men until the end of the age (Mt 28:19-20). Water baptism ONLY has reference to that kind and is the prerequisite for membership in the Church of Christ (Acts 2:40).

ONE Church, comprised of botht he living now, and those who passed onto heaven... entry is by faith in yeshua, and water baptism entry to membership in the local church, faith in him into 'The Church"

Fifth, the confusion of Christendom lies in the professing kingdom of God on earth (Mt. 13) which is not to be confused with the churches of Christ or "the church of Christ" as an institution built by Christ with ordinances and ordained leaders.

ONE Church of christ, JUST made up of those who have received yeshua by faith, saved by the cross ALONE...

MANY local churches that are branches to that, ALL in the Church are saved, some are/some aren't in local church!

Think that the biggest concern would be in the use of the term 'Universal church/Church of christ"...

just saying the bible does teach that ALL NT saints are into that Body, maybe we are saying same thing, but with different terminolgy!

 

[WestminsterMan]

The point is that the scriptuers teach contrary to the "father's" in regard to baptism so in order to find any justification for another mode than immersion, and another candidate but believers one must find it OUTSIDE of the scriptures.

That's because most Christians do not believe in the recent man made Sola Scriptura position.

WM

 

[WestminsterMan]

You have not a clue.

Right....

WM

 

[The Biblicist]

That's because most Christians do not believe in the recent man made Sola Scriptura position.

WM

Nothing recent about it! It is as old as Scripture itself! What is recent is the rejection of scripture as final authority for faith and practice.

FACTS:

1. The scripture claims to be final authority in faith and practice - Isa. 8:20; 2 Tim. 3:16-17;

2. Jesus NEVER quoted tradition as a source of authority for faith and practice but consistently quoted scripture as authority.

3. The Apostles NEVER quoted tradition as a source of authority for faith and practice but consistently quoted scripture as there final authority

 

[The Biblicist]

Think that the biggest concern would be in the use of the term 'Universal church/Church of christ"...

just saying the bible does teach that ALL NT saints are into that Body, maybe we are saying same thing, but with different terminolgy!

Have you done any serious study in regard to the distinctions between the kingdom of God and the church of God?

For example

1. Different terms with different meanings

2. Different point in time for existence

3. Different relationships with God

4. Different ways of entrance

5. Different relationship to each other

 

[Yeshua1]

Have you done any serious study in regard to the distinctions between the kingdom of God and the church of God?

For example

1. Different terms with different meanings

2. Different point in time for existence

3. Different relationships with God

4. Different ways of entrance

5. Different relationship to each other

From my reading of the bible and from other references...

isn't the Church part of the kingdom, but not ALL of it?

 

[WestminsterMan]

Nothing recent about it! It is as old as Scripture itself! What is recent is the rejection of scripture as final authority for faith and practice.

FACTS:

1. The scripture claims to be final authority in faith and practice - Isa. 8:20; 2 Tim. 3:16-17;

2. Jesus NEVER quoted tradition as a source of authority for faith and practice but consistently quoted scripture as authority.

3. The Apostles NEVER quoted tradition as a source of authority for faith and practice but consistently quoted scripture as there final authority

Yet... Scripture never says that it is the SOLe authority and you cannot show where it says that about itself. Now I know that you want to make this a debate about Sola Scriptura, however, since a majority of Christians don't hold to that man-made and fallacious doctrine, it will be your task to prove it - and a task, I might add, that you have been repeatedly unable to prove. Yeeeee- haw!

WM

 

[The Biblicist]

Yet... Scripture never says that it is the SOLe authority and you cannot show where it says that about itself. Now I know that you want to make this a debate about Sola Scriptura, however, since a majority of Christians don't hold to that man-made and fallacious doctrine, it will be your task to prove it - and a task, I might add, that you have been repeatedly unable to prove. Yeeeee- haw!

WM

No, I have demonstrated it thoroughly and repeatedly. I demonstrated by the examples of Christ and the Apostles. I have demonstrated by both Old and New Testaments passages (Isa. 8:16-20; 2 Tim. 3:16-17). I have demonstrated by the Ante-Nicene Fathers (Tertullian). However, I can't open blind eyes and heal deaf ears - God will have to do that for you!

 

[WestminsterMan]

No, I have demonstrated it thoroughly and repeatedly. I demonstrated by the examples of Christ and the Apostles. I have demonstrated by both Old and New Testaments passages (Isa. 8:16-20; 2 Tim. 3:16-17). I have demonstrated by the Ante-Nicene Fathers (Tertullian). However, I can't open blind eyes and heal deaf ears - God will have to do that for you!

Yet you cannot provide a single scriptural passage showing where scripture states that it is the SOLE authority as it simply does not exist. What I find very interesting is your predilection to discount the ECF's when they disagree with you, only to then turn and embrace them when convenient. Here's your own post in this very thread...

He is right! Trash the scriptures and seek authority from traditions of men and you can justify the false doctrine of sprinkling and pouring as baptism. Indeed, you can justify anything your heart desires!

And what have you just done by using Tertullian in support of Sola Scriptura but go outside of scripture. Thus you deny your own belief in Sola Scriptura and by doing so, you disprove the very position that you so vehemently espouse. Where did you get your education? SPANK...

WM

 

[WestminsterMan]

Duplicate post..

 

[Revmitchell]

Yet... Scripture never says that it is the SOLe authority and you cannot show where it says that about itself. Now I know that you want to make this a debate about Sola Scriptura, however, since a majority of Christians don't hold to that man-made and fallacious doctrine, it will be your task to prove it - and a task, I might add, that you have been repeatedly unable to prove. Yeeeee- haw!

WM

Why are you trying to drag this off topic?

 

[The Biblicist]

Yet you cannot provide a single scriptural passage showing where scripture states that it is the SOLE authority as it simply does not exist.

That is simply not true! Isaiah 8:20 clearly says it. You have to EXPLAIN IT AWAY and any interpetation that has to EXPLAIN AWAY what a text says is a weaker interpretation. The same is true with 2 Tim. 3:16-17. You have to EXPLAIN IT AWAY!

Furthermore, I demonstrate those texts by the actions of both Christ and the Apostles as they NEVER call upon traditions of the elders as authority for their teachings or actions but ALWAYS quote scripture as their authority.

What I find very interesting is your predilection to discount the ECF's when they disagree with you, only to then turn and embrace them when convenient. Here's your own post in this very thread...

I don't have to quote ECF's at all, just as I don't have to quote Watchtower sources but I do because JW's and Catholics recogize such things as authority. I quote such uninspired sources to show the inconsistency with their arguments and their refusal to accept the scriptures.

And what have you just done by using Tertullian in support of Sola Scriptura but go outside of scripture. Thus you deny your own belief in Sola Scriptura and by doing so, you disprove the very position that you so vehemently espouse. Where did you get your education? SPANK...WM

I could simply quote Isaiah 8:16-18 and follow it up in the New Testament writers as I have done many times and that is completely sufficient for me because I recognize the scriptuers as my sole authority for faith and practice. However, guys like you don't recognize scripture as either sole or final authority for anything and so I quote what you do recognize when I can find it to show your own confusion!

 

[WestminsterMan]

That is simply not true! Isaiah 8:20 clearly says it. You have to EXPLAIN IT AWAY and any interpetation that has to EXPLAIN AWAY what a text says is a weaker interpretation. The same is true with 2 Tim. 3:16-17. You have to EXPLAIN IT AWAY!

Furthermore, I demonstrate those texts by the actions of both Christ and the Apostles as they NEVER call upon traditions of the elders as authority for their teachings or actions but ALWAYS quote scripture as their authority.






I don't have to quote ECF's at all, just as I don't have to quote Watchtower sources but I do because JW's and Catholics recogize such things as authority. I quote such uninspired sources to show the inconsistency with their arguments and their refusal to accept the scriptures.





I could simply quote Isaiah 8:16-18 and follow it up in the New Testament writers as I have done many times and that is completely sufficient for me because I recognize the scriptuers as my sole authority for faith and practice. However, guys like you don't recognize scripture as either sole or final authority for anything and so I quote what you do recognize when I can find it to show your own confusion!

Yet, you didn't rely only on scripture. By quoting Tertullian, you have completely destroyed your own position of Sola Scriptura. Hey... It's you position not mine. You are totally busted!

WM

 

[WestminsterMan]

Why are you trying to drag this off topic?

ZZZZzzzzz....